I am sorry if I am not understanding this right, but isn't an expance more tangible than an oportunity. A budget shortfall, is far more tangible than a lost oportunity. Is that the status quo bias?

I think the problem is that you're considering a comparison between a total budget and a single line item.

---------- Post added 2012-11-19 at 09:45 PM ----------

If we're trying to predict rational company behavior and determine whether there will indeed be a shortfall, there's no reason to treat an opportunity cost any different than any actual loss of money on the making of that product. I know this offends people's sense of justice, but I'm really not clear why.

It's not that simple. If this drug works better than the new drugs (Which it may or may not, I'm not a pharmacologist) then the pharm companies could charge whatever the hell they thought was profitable enough. This drug obviously requires no R&D since it's been around since the late 50s. You don't give up a sure thing.

Actually, they do, see, patents for drugs wear out and then they have to compete with the "generic" versions which drives price down. I've read stories of second generation drugs being less effective, but becoming the defacto drug because it extended the time that they had before losing their patent protections.

I think the problem is that you're considering a comparison between a total budget and a single line item.

---------- Post added 2012-11-19 at 09:45 PM ----------

If we're trying to predict rational company behavior and determine whether there will indeed be a shortfall, there's no reason to treat an opportunity cost any different than any actual loss of money on the making of that product. I know this offends people's sense of justice, but I'm really not clear why.

Just means I need to read about it. I don't see how it would offend people's sense of justice. I don't get it, I'll google it a bit...

If we're trying to predict rational company behavior and determine whether there will indeed be a shortfall, there's no reason to treat an opportunity cost any different than any actual loss of money on the making of that product. I know this offends people's sense of justice, but I'm really not clear why.

That's the point though. Laize said that as a counter to an appeal to justice.

If you want to call Wikipedia's and Forbes' definition "Made up" then sure.

Not sure about Forbes, but Wikipedia agrees with what I said.

A cancer cure would be an unbelievable windfall for pharmaceutical companies.

For 10 years (at least), whichever pharma company invented such a cure would be able to reap profits that would make Apple jealous.

The idea that pharma companies are withholding a cure for cancer because of profit is hilarious at best.

I highly doubt a cure for cancer would be as profitable as you think. It would be a product that would be inherently destructive to the profits of their other products. They would need to charge enough to make up for that. Such a price would be out of reach for many. Another problem would be that a patent would only protect them domestically. People already travel abroad for cheap drugs and medical services, in the case of a cure that would be out of the financial reach for so many, this practice would increase drastically.

Withholding a cure because of profit? Doubtful. The development of a cure being held back by profits? Probably.

Originally Posted by Spectral

I think the idea that there's something unjust about this action is foreign to both Laize and myself. I don't think it's incumbent on a company to attempt to save the most lives possible.

There's a difference between trying to save as many lives as possible and going for maximum profit possible at the expensive of lives. It's actually a rather large difference, as both are the extreme ends of a spectrum.

Some in the thread seem to be really offended by the idea that a company would choose to maximize its profits rather than maximizing its life saving potential.

That's like being offended that water is wet. It's why corporations should not be in charge of healthcare. If it was offensive for corporations to do things for profit, there would be less of a need for a separation from healthcare. Profit being the goal is not speacial or out of the ordinary. To be offended to me implies a misunderstanding of what is actually wrong with for profit healthcare.

People need to get out of the mentality that corporate ran healthcare versus universal or single payer, is a good versus evil construct.

There's a difference between trying to save as many lives as possible and going for maximum profit possible at the expensive of lives. It's actually a rather large difference, as both are the extreme ends of a spectrum.

That's fair enough. Still, we should reasonably expect that companies should and will attempt to maximize profits so long as they're not violating laws or the spirit of a basic social contract. I don't see them doing either here; they're under no legal or ethical (at least in my opinion) to make a less profitable product. If it's a viable product, it's likely that another company will fill the niche anyway.

That's fair enough. Still, we should reasonably expect that companies should and will attempt to maximize profits so long as they're not violating laws or the spirit of a basic social contract. I don't see them doing either here; they're under no legal or ethical (at least in my opinion) to make a less profitable product. If it's a viable product, it's likely that another company will fill the niche anyway.

That's where we disagree. I ask you, what is the point of allowing companies to exist in a society?

That's where we disagree. I ask you, what is the point of allowing companies to exist in a society?

I don't understand the question. I'm not trying to be rude, I literally don't understand. We allow them to exist because people are free to form associations with each other; we'd have to have a compelling reason to ban them, not the other way around.

There's a difference between trying to save as many lives as possible and going for maximum profit possible at the expensive of lives. It's actually a rather large difference, as both are the extreme ends of a spectrum.

They are extremes of two different spectrums. The cost of life and financial profit are two different spectrums. The problem with corporate healthcare, is the two spectrums intertwining. The reason you think it's unjust, because you are overlaying the spectrum of corporate cost over the cost of life in healthcare. The problem isn't that corporations want profit over the lives of people, the two being intertwined is unjust.

---------- Post added 2012-11-20 at 03:28 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Bergtau

That's where we disagree. I ask you, what is the point of allowing companies to exist in a society?

I don't understand the question. I'm not trying to be rude, I literally don't understand. We allow them to exist because people are free to form associations with each other; we'd have to have a compelling reason to ban them, not the other way around.

Well corporations are kind of a whole thing on top of freedom of association.

I don't understand the question. I'm not trying to be rude, I literally don't understand. We allow them to exist because people are free to form associations with each other; we'd have to have a compelling reason to ban them, not the other way around.

Perhaps I phrased it poorly. Basically, what do you think the point of a company should be? What do they do?

---------- Post added 2012-11-20 at 03:32 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Felya420

They are extremes of two different spectrums. The cost of life and financial profit are two different spectrums. The problem with corporate healthcare, is the two spectrums intertwining. The reason you think it's unjust, because you are overlaying the spectrum of corporate cost over the cost of life in healthcare. The problem isn't that corporations want profit over the lives of people, the two being intertwined is unjust.

When the two are intertwined, they become part of the same spectrum until otherwise split.

No one ever expected corporations to act as benevolent entities. They've been out for themselves since the dawn of civilization and nothing has changed in that regard.

The desire to not alienate their customers (and customers' money) is what keeps the vast majority of corporations honest.[COLOR="red"]

Not true at all. There are countless examples of good corporate citizenship. For example, in my home city (Toronto) one year the city cut out the free New Years Eve rides on public transit because of budget cuts. Molson (Canadian brewing company) stepped in and organized a private-sector campaign to pay for free public transit rides, and chipped in the first $20,000 themselves.

Not true at all. There are countless examples of good corporate citizenship. For example, in my home city (Toronto) one year the city cut out the free New Years Eve rides on public transit because of budget cuts. Molson (Canadian brewing company) stepped in and organized a private-sector campaign to pay for free public transit rides, and chipped in the first $20,000 themselves.

I never said corporations were evil since the dawn of time. I said they've been out for themselves, which is true.

When the two are intertwined, they become part of the same spectrum until otherwise split.

Them being part of the same spectrum does not change the fact that the point of two are different. The reason why you find corporation unjust for their profit driven motives is that the two are simply not the same.

You are applying motives to a corporation, that is not one they have.

---------- Post added 2012-11-20 at 03:50 AM ----------

Originally Posted by ptwonline

Not true at all. There are countless examples of good corporate citizenship. For example, in my home city (Toronto) one year the city cut out the free New Years Eve rides on public transit because of budget cuts. Molson (Canadian brewing company) stepped in and organized a private-sector campaign to pay for free public transit rides, and chipped in the first $20,000 themselves.

Which is extraordinary, not ordinary. In that regard the motive might have been charity. But, charity is only charity because you are stepping out of the normal motives.

Them being part of the same spectrum does not change the fact that the point of two are different. The reason why you find corporation unjust for their profit driven motives is that the two are simply not the same.

These companies are not the evil big pharma, they are the generic drugs guys. Small laboratories, limited manufacturing capability. Can we really blame them for turning to the most profitable drugs?

As i see it, European governments have two choices, either suck it up and pay them more so they keep that drug in the higher end of profitability, or fund government-owned laboratories to produce abandoned drugs.